This is a wilderness with Australia's largest intact single tract of temperate rainforest. Burke himself said parts of it were ''truly magnificent and special''.

Yet when it came to the heritage listing, he said: ''I went through ways of trying to find that connection of rainforest . . . across the Tarkine with a boundary, in a way that was not going to have a massive negative impact on jobs in Tasmania. I simply wasn't able to find that boundary.''

Not at all. He found nothing. Correct or not, this is the decision of an industry minister, not an environment minister.

Likewise the new Tasmanian forests World Heritage nomination. As part of the Tasmanian forests peace deal, green groups made this nomination a fundamental demand.

Burke acceded to it, and spoke of it, only in the context that it had forest industry backing. To reject it would be to endanger jobs dependent on the deal. The World Heritage values of these forests themselves were given short shrift.

It's illuminating, too, that Burke is the go-to minister on this forests peace process. Joe Ludwig, his successor as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, appears only at the head of joint media releases.

Likewise when it comes to the ocean. Burke's marine reserves decision, near to being finalised, has been couched strongly in terms of its lack of impact on the fishing industry, and recreational fishers.

On fresh water, the Murray Darling Basin Plan of last November had Burke delivering for all, too, with ''reform that restores the rivers to health and ensured strong regional communities and a vibrant irrigation industry''.

The electoral effect of environment protection is uppermost in the mind of all political parties.

It would be absurd to suggest no account should be taken of the economic impact of protection decisions.

But shouldn't good cabinet government call for a natural tension between environment and industry portfolios, and not a common cause?